Re: It's been going on for a long time
Perhaps it's worth remembering that until recently Britsh referenda required 40% of those eligible to vote to deliver a "yes" result. 37% "yes" versus 35% "no" would have been a win for NO, not for YES, but for Brexit it's being rammed down our throats despite the tradition, and Scots who voted massively against Brexit are being forced to accept it. Scotland got denied any devolution of govenment powers for decades because their majority in the devolution referendum towards the end of the 70s consisted of fewer than 40% or eligible voters - a bigger proportion (51.6%) of actual YES voters than the proportion (51.3%) of actual voters for Brexit. To me, as a Scot, that seems disgraceful - a bigger majority was treated as lost in 1979 that the small majority that won the Brexit referendum. I guess the majority or English in the house of commons may have something to do with this blatant prejudice.ANd claiing that British elections to parliament are binding is just so much crap; if they were binding, we would need elections we would have an even worse electoral dictatorship than we have today: after all, we elected a conservative govenment last time round? If that's binding, why should we ever hold another election that might deliver a different result? That's more sensible than what's being claimed to preclude a referendum that determines whether we will accept whatever mess the government produces as a Brexit agreement is, but the English newspapers and most or the English dominated Conservative parties are advocating that "it was binding". And presumably you have forgotten that what parliament authorised a couple of years ago was specifically a NON-BINDING referendum.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
